Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999. This legislation fills an important gap in our national strategy for combating substance abuse in our communities. Specifically, this bill creates a dedicated funding commitment for treating youth with alcohol and drug problems. We have made important progress in impacting the number of our youth using alcohol and drugs. However, studies reveal that alcohol is still the drug of choice for many Americans--and our youth are no exception. Studies reveal that fifty-two percent of senior high school students report using alcohol in the past month and 25% are using drugs on a monthly basis. Each year, 400,000 teens and their families will seek substance abuse treatment but find that it is either unavailable or unaffordable. Some teens in need of treatment may have incomes too high to receive Medicaid, but too low to afford private insurance or to pay for treatment out of pocket. Those who do have private insurance through a managed care plan may find that length of treatment is severely restricted. At best, 20% of adolescents with severe alcohol and drug treatment problems who ask for help will receive any form of treatment. Those teens who are fortunate enough to get treatment often find that available services do not adequately address their needs. The physical, hormonal, developmental, and emotional changes of the adolescent years pose challenges to health care providers, many of whom have not been trained to deal specifically with this population. Providing teens with access to research-based, developmentally and age-appropriate treatment which will address their specific needs can increase their rates of recovery and better prevent relapses. Without intervention teen substance abusers may also engage in other risky behaviors. Teen alcohol and drug abuse may spiral into academic failure and involvement with the juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts report that in over 50 percent of their cases substance abuse is a contributing factor. In a survey of teens receiving substance abuse treatment, 59% had been arrested at least once and 16% had been arrested for felonies. In addition, teens who use alcohol are more likely to become sexually active at earlier ages and to engage in unsafe sex, increasing the chances of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. We also know that substance abuse is associated with aggressive, anti-social, and violent behaviors and that chemical dependency can magnify existing behavioral problems. The facts are alarming: children who abuse alcohol and drugs are at a greater risk for killing themselves or others. Alcohol-related traffic crashes are the leading cause of teen death, and alcohol is also involved in homicides and suicides, the second and third leading causes of teen deaths respectively. Alcohol and drug use has a huge price tag both for families and society at large--and we can't afford to sit idly by while it continues to rise. Seven thousand youth in my state of Connecticut alone are in need of treatment. That is why I am introducing the Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act. This legislation will provide grants to give youth substance abusers access to effective alcohol and drug treatment services that are developmentally and culturally appropriate. Specifically, this bill will address the particular issues of youth involved with the juvenile justice system and those with mental health or other special needs. Finally, this legislation will contribute to the development of treatment models that address the relationship between substance abuse and aggressive, anti-social, and violent behaviors. While I am disappointed that this bill is not currently included in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today, I am encouraged that Senator Frist has agreed to work with me, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman prior to a markup of the bill to craft legislation to comprehensively address the substance abuse needs of adolescents. The Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999 expresses a commitment to ensuring that no child who asks for help with a substance abuse problem will be denied treatment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Jeffords in introducing the Children of Substance Abusers Reauthorization Act'' (COSA). This legislation represents a vital step in expanding and improving early intervention, prevention, and treatment services for families confronting substance abuse. In addition, this legislation addresses the devastation generated in the wake of parental substance abuse--the physical and emotional difficulties faced by children of substance abusers, abuse and neglect, and adolescent substance abuse and violence. Children with substance abusing parents face serious health risks, including congenital birth defects and psychological, emotional, and developmental problems. For example, fetal exposure to alcohol puts a child in danger of fetal alcohol syndrome and other congenital birth defects. In addition, each year around 500,000 babies are born prenatally exposed to some form of addictive substance including crack, alcohol, and tobacco, compromising their long-term ability to thrive and to learn. We also know that substance abuse plays a major role in child abuse and neglect--irreparably damaging family bonds and threatening to further strain an already over-burdened child welfare system. In fact, over the past 10 years, fueled by parental substance abuse, the number of abused and neglected children has more than doubled from 1.4 million in 1986 to more than 3 million in 1997, a rise more than eight times greater than the increase in the child population. The disturbing link between parental substance abuse and child abuse is irrefutable. It is estimated that children whose parents abuse drugs and/or alcohol are three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than children whose parents are not substance abusers. In a 1998 report, the General Accounting Office estimated that two-thirds of all children in foster-care had substance abusing mothers and that 80% of those mothers had been using drugs or alcohol for at least five years--many of them for ten years or more. Alcohol and drug use exact a huge price tag on both children and society at large. Estimates are that parental substance abuse costs the nation approximately $20 billion a year. Of that amount, the federal government pays 44%, states 44%, and local governments 12% of the cost. We also know that the toll that substance abuse takes on families is immeasurable. Parents sacrifice the joys of watching their children grow and thrive and their children lose the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe, supportive home. In Connecticut alone, there are an estimated 12-15,000 children of substance abusers who are in desperate need of integrated, specialized support services. To assist those families and the thousands of others across this nation battling substance abuse, this legislation seeks a broad-based commitment from schools, social service agencies, health providers, community centers, and the other entities serving families to join together to promote aggressive outreach, prevention and treatment services. Because parental substance abuse impacts so many aspects of children's lives, this legislation would also provide comprehensive, family-centered services addressing health, mental health, violence, child abuse and neglect, HIV and family planning services, child care, and transportation. In addition, COSA will strengthen the systems which provide these services by funding the education and training of providers. COSA represents a bipartisan commitment to lessen the terrible toll that substance abuse takes on families. I am grateful for Senator Jeffords' co-sponsorship and am pleased that Senator Frist and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee have agreed to include COSA within the larger Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Violence Prevention Training for Early Childhood Educators Act,'' legislation designed to teach violence prevention to children at the earliest ages. all of us have been shaken by the tragedy at Littleton, Colorado. Americans are left searching for answers to many questions. How could these teenagers have committed such brutality? What happened to the innocence and joy of youth? How can society help prevent such violent, deadly behavior from happening again? One of the most effective solutions is to begin violence prevention at an early age. My proposal was not thrown together as a quick-fix to the Littleton tragedy. It is a carefully thought-out program aimed at true prevention. It is designed to help early childhood educators-- the people who work directly with young children in preschools, child care centers, and elementary schools--learn the skills necessary to prevent violent behavior in young children. This legislation supports programs that prepare these professionals so that early childhood teachers, child care providers, and counselors are able to teach children how to resolve conflicts without violence. In addition, these professionals are in the perfect position to reach out and extend these lessons to parents and help whole families adopt these powerful skills. Research has demonstrated that aggressive behavior nearly childhood is the single best predictor of aggression in later years. Children observe and imitate aggressive behavior over the course of many years. They certainly have plenty of exposure to violence, both in the streets and at home. For example, a Boston ho0spital found that 1 out of every 10 children seen in their primary care clinic had witnessed a shooting or stabbing before the age of 6. I am disheartened to report that in my home state of Connecticut, 1 in 10 teens have been physically abused. Alarmingly, more than a third of teenage boys report that they have guns or could get one in less than a day. Aggression may become very well-learned by the time a child reaches adolescence. Therefore, we must provide children with strategies for altering the negative influences of exposure to violence. Early childhood offers a critical period for overcoming the risk of violent behavior and later juvenile delinquency. And the proper training of professional who work with young children offers an effective route to reaching these kids. This is not to suggest that early childhood professionals would replace parents as a source of teaching prosocial and acceptable behavior. Instead, these teachers should be encouraged to work with the whole family to address conflict without violence and aggression. In 1992, as part of the Higher Education Act reauthorization, Congress enacted similar legislation to provide grants for programs that train professionals in early childhood education and violence counseling. These grants funded some remarkable programs. In my home state, a program at Eastern Connecticut State University trained students--half of whom were minority, low-income indivdiuals--to be teachers in their own communities, and trained child care providers in violence prevention with young children. Unfortunately, just as these efforts were getting off the ground and starting to show promising results, the funding for the program was rescinded as part of the major 1994 rescission bill. Looking back, after the horrible events in Littleton, Colorado, Springfield, Oregon, and too many other communities, I think we can clearly see that was a mistake, Hindsight is always clearer--but let's not make the same mistake going forward. As we now work towards the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I hope that my proposal for a similar grant program for early violence prevention training is included in these discussions. Preventing future acts of violence is an issue that rises above partisan politics. I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the development of violent behavior in children. Please join me in this effort to begin creating a safer society for everyone, especially our children.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nestled in what is known as the ``Quiet Corner'' of northeastern Connecticut along the banks of the Quinebaug River lies the town of Plainfield. This year marks Plainfield's 300th anniversary and as its residents celebrate their history, it is important to reflect upon the invaluable contributions of those, past and present, who have made Plainfield a unique Connecticut town. The first citizens of Plainfield were, much like the original colonists of New England, ingenious and resourceful. Settling in a land that was full of unknowns, these men and women were intent on providing a better life for themselves and future generations. The Plainfield of today is a testament to their strength and perseverence. In May of 1699, some thirty families petitioned Governor Jonathan Winthrop to incorporate the disputed Quinebaug Plantation, which included land on both sides of the Quinebaug River, into the town of Plainfield. Eventually, in 1703, colonists living on the western banks of the river separated to settle what is now the town of Canterbury. The construction of roads during the 1700's from Providence to Norwich which ran through Plainfield made the town an important trading post of surplus crops. Antiquated by today's standards, the simple roads that connected Plainfield with other New England towns earned it the reputation as a vital crossroads throughout the region. With Plainfield Junction serving as a stop on the Norwich to Worcester railroad, Plainfield's residents were exposed to travelers from abroad and bore witness to the impending technological boom of the next century. By the end of the 18th century, the town could credit its first village center and meetinghouse, shops, and taverns to the increased number of families choosing to make Plainfield their home. The advent of the textile industry during the 19th century brought about significant changes for this town, forever changing the face of Plainfield and redefining the lives of its residents. With activity centered on the Moosup River, the cotton and woolen mills transformed Plainfield from a predominantly farming society to an industrial hub. The introduction of industry into the community altered and enhanced the ethnic character of Plainfield. French-Canadians seeking temporary refuge and employment in Plainfield's mills ultimately made the bustling town their home, successfully contributing to the town's growth as shopkeepers and professionals. French-Canadians helped to define Plainfield's identity and their heritage is still very much alive in its townspeople today. Despite its many transformations over the last 300 years, Plainfield has always remained a town that is distinctly New England in its character. Many of the mills are now gone, yet, much of Plainfield's historical landscape still survives. In 1994, Plainfield, together with 24 other northeastern Connecticut towns, was designated as the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. This is an exceptional achievement that recognizes Plainfield's success in encouraging new economic development while preserving its rich history. As we move toward the new millennium, the residents of Plainfield return to their past not only for the lessons that it holds but also to celebrate the people and events that have made them who they are today. Much is made of our history as a country, yet many of us overlook the important examples set by those in our own backyards. We all should seek within our own communities to embrace the past and recognize the significance of local heritage in shaping the modern character of our own families and towns. On behalf of myself, and the entire State of Connecticut, I offer Plainfield a very hearty happy birthday and my best wishes for another successful 100 years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Violence Prevention Training for Early Childhood Educators Act,'' legislation designed to teach violence prevention to children at the earliest ages. all of us have been shaken by the tragedy at Littleton, Colorado. Americans are left searching for answers to many questions. How could these teenagers have committed such brutality? What happened to the innocence and joy of youth? How can society help prevent such violent, deadly behavior from happening again? One of the most effective solutions is to begin violence prevention at an early age. My proposal was not thrown together as a quick-fix to the Littleton tragedy. It is a carefully thought-out program aimed at true prevention. It is designed to help early childhood educators-- the people who work directly with young children in preschools, child care centers, and elementary schools--learn the skills necessary to prevent violent behavior in young children. This legislation supports programs that prepare these professionals so that early childhood teachers, child care providers, and counselors are able to teach children how to resolve conflicts without violence. In addition, these professionals are in the perfect position to reach out and extend these lessons to parents and help whole families adopt these powerful skills. Research has demonstrated that aggressive behavior nearly childhood is the single best predictor of aggression in later years. Children observe and imitate aggressive behavior over the course of many years. They certainly have plenty of exposure to violence, both in the streets and at home. For example, a Boston ho0spital found that 1 out of every 10 children seen in their primary care clinic had witnessed a shooting or stabbing before the age of 6. I am disheartened to report that in my home state of Connecticut, 1 in 10 teens have been physically abused. Alarmingly, more than a third of teenage boys report that they have guns or could get one in less than a day. Aggression may become very well-learned by the time a child reaches adolescence. Therefore, we must provide children with strategies for altering the negative influences of exposure to violence. Early childhood offers a critical period for overcoming the risk of violent behavior and later juvenile delinquency. And the proper training of professional who work with young children offers an effective route to reaching these kids. This is not to suggest that early childhood professionals would replace parents as a source of teaching prosocial and acceptable behavior. Instead, these teachers should be encouraged to work with the whole family to address conflict without violence and aggression. In 1992, as part of the Higher Education Act reauthorization, Congress enacted similar legislation to provide grants for programs that train professionals in early childhood education and violence counseling. These grants funded some remarkable programs. In my home state, a program at Eastern Connecticut State University trained students--half of whom were minority, low-income indivdiuals--to be teachers in their own communities, and trained child care providers in violence prevention with young children. Unfortunately, just as these efforts were getting off the ground and starting to show promising results, the funding for the program was rescinded as part of the major 1994 rescission bill. Looking back, after the horrible events in Littleton, Colorado, Springfield, Oregon, and too many other communities, I think we can clearly see that was a mistake, Hindsight is always clearer--but let's not make the same mistake going forward. As we now work towards the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I hope that my proposal for a similar grant program for early violence prevention training is included in these discussions. Preventing future acts of violence is an issue that rises above partisan politics. I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the development of violent behavior in children. Please join me in this effort to begin creating a safer society for everyone, especially our children.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from New Mexico. I have enjoyed a lot of relationships in this Chamber over the years on numerous issues, but none as much as I have with my colleague from New Mexico on Character Counts. I am pleased to be joining my colleague in submitting this Senate Resolution designating the weeks of October 17, 1999 and October 15, 2000 as National Character Counts Week. Character Counts is a program that I encourage for every one of our colleagues. There are programs now in all 50 States. Some States have more than others. There are 10,000 children in my home State of Connecticut who have been the beneficiary of our Character Counts effort, the six pillars of good character. We have had a lot of attention paid over the last couple of weeks to the tragedy in Littleton, CO. Americans are left searching for answers to many questions. How could these teenagers have committed such brutality? How can society help prevent such violent, deadly behavior from happening again? There are a variety of suggestions people are making--the tendency is to revert to form. You have one group that says the answer is gun control, another group says it is the video games and the Internet, and another group says it is the schools or the parents. You could probably find some merit in all of those areas. I believe that one answer is to encourage schools to build character in their students. I am not going to stand here and claim that this is the solution. But it is certainly part of the solution. This is an issue that goes beyond the prevention of violence. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``To educate a person's mind and not his character is to educate a menace.'' In some ways, there is a lot of validity in that statement. Possessing a good mind without good character can create more problems than one can imagine. Education is a central part of children's lives, and schools are the key to reaching the majority of America's children. Today's children have so many obstacles to overcome, including violence and drug use. As a society, we must find ways to help these children become responsible citizens, to distinguish between right and wrong. To do this, we must build on traditional education by nurturing student character. Schools can teach and reinforce the importance of qualities like trustworthiness, responsibility, caring for others, and citizenship. By combining character education with solid instruction in reading, math, and science, our schools can produce young people who are not only strong in intellect, but also strong in character. This is not to suggest that parents do not play a key role as well. Parents should be deeply involved in their children's character development. They should help plan school character development programs, and reinforce the programs' lessons in the home. What we have done in our schools, and in the schools of New Mexico and other states, is take one of these six pillars a month, and weave it into the seamless fabric of the day, from the math class to the history class to the band and athletic field to the extracurricular activity. They will take the character of respect: What is respect? What is lack of respect among teachers, students, and administrators? It is incredible to see the difference this has made in these young people, the administrators, and the faculty of these schools. It has been a tremendous success. This is a remarkable program. It goes back a number of years, when we put a small amount of money into the program to be used by the States and localities to promote the idea of character education. I have never known a dollar that has been better spent or has done more good. Talk about seed money and making a difference. We all know that these children should be getting this kind of education at home. That is where it should happen. But, tragically, today for a variety of reasons, children are entering school without these basic lessons that a generation ago were learned at the knees of their parents. Many of my colleagues in the Senate come to the floor each year and join me in supporting character education in our schools. For the past six years, I have been working to support character education. In 1994, the amendment Senator Domenici and I offered to the Elementary and Secondary Education bill was adopted by the full Senate. The amendment provided funding for schools to start character education curriculums. Since then, I have had the opportunity to visit schools in my home state of Connecticut and I have seen these funds at work. Teachers, parents and the students themselves are enthusiastic about these programs and have reported better attendance, higher academic performance, and improved behavior among students. My colleagues can confirm that these positive results are evident throughout the Nation. Again, I compliment my colleague and friend from New Mexico for his leadership on character education. I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting National Character Counts Week and recognizing character education as a critical part of creating more responsible children and a safer society in which to live.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Gramm for the fairness in which these proceedings have been held, and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes should also be commended for his leadership. We will soon vote on final passage of S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act. I will, unfortunately, be unable to support what I believe in many ways is a very good product. I am a strong supporter of financial modernization. If the anti-CRA provisions were corrected, I would help to lead the charge in supporting this bill. There are important differences of opinion on various facets of this legislation. We have had good debates on many of these facets. Although I did not support the amendment offered by Senator Johnson to restrict the transferability of unitary thrifts, He should be congratulated for his fine work on the amendment. It is an important issue that I am sure that we will revisit in conference. The chairman earlier today staked his support of this bill on the outcome of the operating subsidiary amendment which was narrowly defeated. I admire the stand he took and the conviction with which he made his arguments. He should be congratulated for prevailing on his point of view. I would also like commend Chairman Gramm for broaching one of the most critical issues that Americans face as we approach the dawning of the new millennium, and that is the steady erosion of the privacy of consumers' personal, sensitive financial information. Although I supported the chairman's amendment that addresses the subject of pretext calling, I believe that it simply does not go far enough. Several factors have contributed to the erosion of financial privacy. We must examine each of these factors in order to craft legislation that will protect financial privacy in a meaningful, effective way. Although advances in technology have produced many positive results and benefits for our economy over the years, one of the potential drawbacks has been that they have also facilitated the collection and retrieval of a vast amount and array of citizens' financial information. That personal information has become a very valuable commodity and is being sold and traded among businesses all over the world. In addition, the formation of new, diversified business affiliations has allowed companies quick access to personal data on each other's customers. Financial modernization legislation, if it becomes law, will only make it easier for companies to share their customers' personal data. Much of the data ``mining''--searching, collecting, and sorting--and actual use of that personal data is nearly imperceptible to the consumers whose very own information is being conveyed. Companies do not generally tell their customers about the personal data they obtain and they sell or rent. Current Federal law permits bank affiliates to share information from credit reports and loan applications as long as the customer gets one opportunity to notify the bank not to disclose the information. Most consumers are unaware of this opportunity because the one notice that the company gives them is buried in the fine print in lengthy materials mailed to the customer that most never read. An even more critical factor causing the erosion of privacy rights is that no current federal law prevents banks from disclosing ``transaction and experience data,'' which includes customers account balances, maturity dates of CDs, and loan payment history. This erosion of the privacy of our most personal, sensitive financial information can and must be stopped. And we must take action to stop it. We should have hearings to address these issues so that we may take a very careful look at all of the factors involved, so that we may address them in a careful, thoughtful and meaningful way. I was pleased to hear Chairman Gramm this morning commit to holding such hearings in the Senate Banking Committee. I am a coauthor of Senator Sarbanes' Financial Information Privacy Act, S. 187, introduced this Congress. This important legislation would require banks and securities firms to protect the privacy of their customers' financial records: their bank account balances, transactions involving their stocks and mutual funds, and payouts on their insurance policies. Customers would be given the important opportunity to prevent banks and securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to affiliates. Before banks or securities firms could disclose or sell the information to third parties, they would be required to give notice to the customer and obtain the express written permission of the customer before making any such disclosure. I look forward to working with Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes on this important issue. But like my good friend from Texas did for me earlier today, I would like to make something very clear to him--I will not support any bill that weakens the Community Reinvestment Act. Also, I will promise him that no bill that weakens CRA will become law. If we do pass this bill out of this body, let me assure you that as hard as I will fight for financial services modernization, I will fight even harder for preserving CRA. I know how strongly the chairman feels against the CRA. Let me tell him, that if it is possible, I feel even stronger about preserving the CRA. I urge my colleagues to reject any and all legislation that fails to preserve CRA. blue cross/blue shield of north carolina

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999. This legislation fills an important gap in our national strategy for combating substance abuse in our communities. Specifically, this bill creates a dedicated funding commitment for treating youth with alcohol and drug problems. We have made important progress in impacting the number of our youth using alcohol and drugs. However, studies reveal that alcohol is still the drug of choice for many Americans--and our youth are no exception. Studies reveal that fifty-two percent of senior high school students report using alcohol in the past month and 25% are using drugs on a monthly basis. Each year, 400,000 teens and their families will seek substance abuse treatment but find that it is either unavailable or unaffordable. Some teens in need of treatment may have incomes too high to receive Medicaid, but too low to afford private insurance or to pay for treatment out of pocket. Those who do have private insurance through a managed care plan may find that length of treatment is severely restricted. At best, 20% of adolescents with severe alcohol and drug treatment problems who ask for help will receive any form of treatment. Those teens who are fortunate enough to get treatment often find that available services do not adequately address their needs. The physical, hormonal, developmental, and emotional changes of the adolescent years pose challenges to health care providers, many of whom have not been trained to deal specifically with this population. Providing teens with access to research-based, developmentally and age-appropriate treatment which will address their specific needs can increase their rates of recovery and better prevent relapses. Without intervention teen substance abusers may also engage in other risky behaviors. Teen alcohol and drug abuse may spiral into academic failure and involvement with the juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts report that in over 50 percent of their cases substance abuse is a contributing factor. In a survey of teens receiving substance abuse treatment, 59% had been arrested at least once and 16% had been arrested for felonies. In addition, teens who use alcohol are more likely to become sexually active at earlier ages and to engage in unsafe sex, increasing the chances of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. We also know that substance abuse is associated with aggressive, anti-social, and violent behaviors and that chemical dependency can magnify existing behavioral problems. The facts are alarming: children who abuse alcohol and drugs are at a greater risk for killing themselves or others. Alcohol-related traffic crashes are the leading cause of teen death, and alcohol is also involved in homicides and suicides, the second and third leading causes of teen deaths respectively. Alcohol and drug use has a huge price tag both for families and society at large--and we can't afford to sit idly by while it continues to rise. Seven thousand youth in my state of Connecticut alone are in need of treatment. That is why I am introducing the Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act. This legislation will provide grants to give youth substance abusers access to effective alcohol and drug treatment services that are developmentally and culturally appropriate. Specifically, this bill will address the particular issues of youth involved with the juvenile justice system and those with mental health or other special needs. Finally, this legislation will contribute to the development of treatment models that address the relationship between substance abuse and aggressive, anti-social, and violent behaviors. While I am disappointed that this bill is not currently included in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today, I am encouraged that Senator Frist has agreed to work with me, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman prior to a markup of the bill to craft legislation to comprehensively address the substance abuse needs of adolescents. The Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999 expresses a commitment to ensuring that no child who asks for help with a substance abuse problem will be denied treatment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Fort Wayne. This was your former opponent, I think, that my colleague pointed out. And I just say to my colleague, again, I have had a similar reaction from my mayors across my State. I know others have. We have a tendency to think of these issues in terms of just what the banking community wants. And that is an important consideration for us, as we certainly deal with financial institutions. But I think--and I would ask my colleague from Indiana whether or not he would agree with this--that, in addition to the banking community, we bear a special responsibility, as Members of the Senate, to also consider what occurs to the customers' financial services. I think sometimes that constituency is given a back seat when it comes to considering the implications of decisions we make. It is the farmer in Wyoming; it is the small businessperson in Connecticut; it is the consumer in Indiana; it is the minority business in North Carolina--all of us have consumers out here who use these financial institutions. I commend my colleague from Indiana for a very thoughtful set of remarks, pointing out that side of the equation, the consumer side, the user side, the business side of our financial services, and I commend him again for his remarks.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator from North Carolina yield?

Mr. DODD. I want to say to my colleague from Indiana, before he leaves the floor, that was an excellent set of remarks. I think it points out the importance of this issue. I was particularly taken by the comments of your mayor of--which city was that, I ask?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Karen Brown of my office, a fellow, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 900.

Mr. DODD. Fine.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bryan amendment. My fervent hope is that we can adopt this amendment and move on with passage of this bill. There are other outstanding issues that need to be resolved. No issue is as galvanizing or as important as this issue of the Community Reinvestment Act and how it is to be handled. My friend from Texas, the chairman of the committee, and I have worked very closely together over many years. We have been each other's chairman and ranking minority member, depending on who was in control of this August body. We have dealt with securities matters, we have written legislation together, passed it together here on the floor, carried it through conference, overrode the President's veto--the only time a veto by this President has been overridden. It is not easy for me to disagree with a man with whom I have agreed on many occasions in dealing with financial issues. However, on this we have a fundamental disagreement. I listened for a good part of the chairman's presentation, especially the last part of the presentation dealing with the alleged abuses that have occurred. I know of nothing in the bill violating existing federal laws on extortion. We may do some things in this bill Members do not want, but to the best of my knowledge the criminal code is left intact. Nowhere in this bill do we touch on the issue of whether or not people are going to be excused from engaging in extortion, blackmail, green mail--call it what you will. The suggestion that there are serious violations of law--State and Federal that I know of--ought to be brought to the proper authorities. If someone believes they have been extorted, then we have Federal prosecutors and State prosecutors to bring those matters to the light of day and those accused can be brought to the bar of justice. Second, I have never known the banking community to be terribly shy about things that they want. They are usually pretty vociferous. They are never reluctant to tell us how they want us to vote on matters that affect their institutions. They lobby quite effectively. They do a good job. The idea that the banking constituency, the thousands of banks all across this country, are somehow afraid of some community-based groups, and would not bring to light their concerns because of fear of some retribution, just doesn't hold up when it comes to how the banking community generally makes its concerns known. The fact of the matter is, here on this issue there really is not a constituency for the provisions in this bill dealing with CRA. Usually we have a litany of organizations that are in favor of or against a provision, organizations and groups which have felt outraged or discriminated against in some way and will stand up and defend in a very loud and clear voice their rights or how their rights are being infringed upon. In the last almost 6 hours of debate, I defy anyone to show me a list of organizations here across the country that feel as though the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow a great infringement on their ability to conduct their business. It is nonexistent. In fact, the only time we have ever actually voted on these matters prior to today is when the House Banking Committee recently voted--51-8, Democrats and Republicans, voted for provisions we are seeking here contained within the Bryan amendment. The Banking Committee last year voted 16-2, Democrats and Republicans, in favor of the provisions that we are trying to reinsert into this legislation. There is overwhelming evidence from the Federal Reserve Board, the banking regulators, banks all across the country, that the Community Reinvestment Act is working, and working well. Let me quickly add I have never met any institution which was overly enthusiastic about any regulation--State, local or Federal. They usually do not welcome these and I understand why. There is a cost associated with it. I appreciate that they try to keep their costs down. Most banks, certainly in my State, have been active in our community and do a great deal of good. However, as the Presiding Officer who has been identified as a distinguished scholar of the legal codes of our country knows, we do not write laws for the overwhelming majority of Americans who obey the law, who try to do the right thing. Laws are written for those who try to abuse what we believe is proper behavior. Only a small percentage of Americans violate the law. But that is not an excuse for not writing laws, because, unfortunately, some do in fact break the law. So when it comes to the Community Reinvestment Act, we seek here not to lay a burden on the overwhelming majority of banks who do a good job. We must recognize that there are institutions which have discriminated against various groups in this country based on race, religion, ethnicity. So several years ago, we decided to enact the Community Reinvestment Act to require that lending institutions, depository institutions, pay attention to our nation's underserved, pay attention to our small farmers, and pay attention to our small businesses. If you are going to do business in Alabama or business in Connecticut as a depository institution, we do not want you to neglect the people in your communities, in your States, on any basis. So we passed CRA and it has worked well. My colleague from Texas has said that there are extortionate practices ongoing. Let me quote him, from a statement made last October. The chairman of the committee said: It has now become common practice in CRA for professional protest groups to protest a bank's community service record and in turn to use the leverage of those protests to extract bribes, kickbacks, set-asides in purchases, quotas, hiring and promotion, none of which has anything to do with CRA and the lending practices of banks in the communities that they serve.'' It is a pretty broad statement. Now, let me give you the facts. Mr. President, four-tenths of 1 percent--let me repeat that, four-tenths of 1 percent of applications have resulted in agreements with community groups; four-tenths of 1 percent have resulted in these agreements. We have had them up here on placards and the easel here today. A great amount of time has been spent talking about these outrageous provisions in these agreements. If one sort of casually tuned into the debate the assumption would be, as the Senator from Texas has said: It is common practice. Common practice? Four-tenths of 1 percent of all the applications? Under any estimation that is not a common practice, less than 1 percent of all the applications. During the past 21 years, there have been approximately 360 agreements reached. How many applications do you think there have been in the past 21 years? Mr. President, 86,000; 86,000 applications and 360 agreements. When you stand up here for an hour and a half or so and list these agreements that have been reached, you leave our colleagues and others with the impression that this has, to quote my friend from Texas, ``become common practice in CRA.'' That is an exaggeration. That is an extreme exaggeration. I do not like what I heard in these agreements. It bothers me a bit. I would like to know more about it. A great deal of information was redacted. We do not have the whole agreement. But I tell my friend from Texas, I am concerned about it, too, and we ought to take a good look at this. Let us remember, however, that we ought to take a look at the 360 agreements, and many of those probably are proper and worthwhile agreements. In fact, many lenders also require counseling for certain loan practices because they improve the quality of loans. To meet commitments, banks sometimes provide payments to community groups for services provided. It is not some outrageous behavior. It goes on all the time. But, nonetheless, if problems exist, let's look at them. But with all due respect to my good friend from Texas, it appears as though we were sort of squirrel hunting with a machine gun here. That is not what his amendment or the language of the bill does. All we are saying here is we want to preserve the Community Reinvestment Act in a new financial framework. This modernization bill allows for the consolidation of financial services. If we are going to do that--and I think we should, I am a strong supporter of it--then it seems to me we should be preserving the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure that we do not have discrimination in lending. We must ensure that Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, as well as small businesses and small farmers, are not going to get short shrift. We are going to have a lot of large institutions, a lot of large banks. We want to make sure the average citizen is not going to find himself or herself denied fair access to credit. That is what the Community Reinvestment Act has been able to do for millions of Americans. I listened to my colleague from Massachusetts and others here today go over the statistics of how vastly the availability of credit has increased to groups who in the past were denied those opportunities. We in this country cherish the notion of equal opportunity. We have never achieved the perfection that our Constitution and our Founding Fathers sought in creating equal opportunity for every citizen in this country, regardless of where they come from or the color of their skin. We all know, painfully, the discrimination that existed for a long time in all parts of our country. Let me reiterate--all parts of our country. I could take you to the Northeast. You do not have to go to the home of my friends from the South in this country to find discrimination in lending. In Connecticut, a year or two ago, you could see the redlining that went on. People talked about this being a southern issue. That is untrue. I could take you to places all across this land where redlining occurred, where neighborhoods and communities were denied equal opportunity. If they are creditworthy people, they ought to get the credit and financing to buy a home, start a business, and get on their feet. Because of these discriminatory practices, we passed the Community Reinvestment Act. It has made quite a difference in our country. It is not a perfect condition yet, but we have reached into the communities of people who never had a chance before and they have a chance today. Now we are going to allow these institutions to affiliate, and engage in new financial activities. With this legislation, are we now going to deny them the very benefit that the Community Reinvestment Act has afforded during the past 22 years? I do not think we ought to deprive them of that. That is what the Bryan amendment attempts to address in part. It says we ought not to exclude certain creditworthy consumers in the process of allowing banks to expand in these new financial areas. To suggest that the extortion of banks by community groups is somehow a common practice--again, four-tenths of 1 percent, 360 applications out of 86,000, is not legitimate. Under anyone's estimation, that is not justification for weakening the Community Reinvestment Act in the 21st century. Again, there is no constituency here. Most people, I think most of my colleagues from all across this country, believe the Community Reinvestment Act is doing a good job. Nobody here wants to be on the side of an equation that says: Having made these gains now we are going to turn back the clock. We should not do that. I do not believe the people who have communicated with us, who write us--bankers, consumers--said that. One of the things we need to keep in mind as we talk about banking legislation and financial institutions in general, is that one of our major responsibilities is to ensure that our nation's financial institutions are going to work well. So we pay a lot of attention to their needs, as we should. But we also need to pay attention to the people who do business with our financial institutions. They are an important part of the equation here as well. Let us not forget the people who show up at that bank window, who go in nervous about whether or not they can get a home loan. Let us not forget the person with a good idea to start a business who needs to know if that local banker will take a chance on him, back him, give him a chance to get on his feet. Those are our constituents, too. They are a fundamental part of this equation. It is not just the person behind the grate; it is the person in front of the grate, too, who we have an obligation to watch out for when we pass financial services modernization legislation. It is those people out there tonight who would like to start a new business, buy a new home, get a chance to share in the American dream. And the Community Reinvestment Act has been the engine for many achieving those desired results. Again, in the past, we have seen votes of support on CRA by our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans. It would be a great pity, indeed, for this bill to fail over this issue. It would be a great pity, indeed. This issue ought not to be the one that causes this bill either to be defeated or to be vetoed by a President and sent back after all the years we tried to get this done. We are 240 days away from the next millennium, the year 2000. The world and its financial markets are getting more complicated. The United States of America has always been a leader in financial services. I do not want to see us lag behind because we couldn't come to terms with what is essentially a fundamental civil rights issue. I do not want to see us lose our leadership role in the global marketplace because we decided we were not going to expand the equal opportunities that are so much a part of this country's heritage. I am concerned that we are willing to give up all the other things we are trying to achieve in financial modernization over CRA provisions that are not supported by the banks they purport to help. In fact, Mr. President, I will include in the Record, and others have already, countless statements from many others-- the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Treasury, and major banks in all parts of this country who have said the Community Reinvestment Act is working. Sometimes conflicts occur; it is difficult. Sometimes we have two groups we admire and support, that are fighting hard for their points of view, and we are asked to make a choice between them. That can be a hard decision. This is not a hard decision. There is no one on the other side of this equation. Yet we are dangerously close to killing an otherwise great bill that does a lot of good things. As I said a moment ago, we have an obligation to make sure our financial institutions are strong. We have an obligation as well to see to it that the users of these financial institutions are not going to be adversely affected by legislation we pass. Let me focus for a second on the small, rural bank exemption that is included in this bill. The bill exempts rural banks with less than $100 million in assets from the requirement of CRA. This exemption addresses that there is some undue burden imposed on small banks complying with CRA, and there may be some merit in that. But the provision in this bill which the Bryan amendment would take out exempts 76 percent of rural banks from CRA, 38 percent of all the banks and thrifts in the United States. Again, I can understand if you just hate CRA, you just think it is a bad idea and we ought to get rid of it. Then I accept that--I disagree with it, but I accept your position. But if you believe CRA makes a difference and it actually helps rural people have greater access to fair credit, then you must acknowledge that this bill exempts 76 percent of rural banks in this country. Virtually one out of every three banks in the country will be exempt from CRA. That seems to me to go too far. CRA loans in rural areas assist small farmers in obtaining credit. Small bankers have historically received lower CRA ratings, quite candidly, than larger banks and have invested less in their communities. On average, 50 percent of large banks have a loan-to-deposit ratio below 70 percent. 25 percent of small banks have a loan-to-deposit ratio of less than 58 percent. The supporters of the small bank exemption contend the CRA creates an onerous regulatory burden. However, the federal banking regulators specifically reduced the regulatory burden on banks when the new CRA enforcement rules went into effect 3 years ago. These efforts streamlined CRA, facilitated easier compliance by lenders, and reduced paperwork requirements. Addressing the specific point the Senator from Texas made that sometimes these banks have a few employees--and, again, I do not want to overload that small bank--in 1996 we streamlined that process considerably for them. If there are some other ideas that will help achieve that, I think we ought to listen to them. Again, think not only about the 8 or 10 employees of that small bank, but think about those small farmers who do not have any other choice but to do business at that bank. Small communities do not give you much of a choice. Your local farmers in Alabama or Connecticut have one bank to go to. It is not like living in New York City or Washington, DC, where you can walk down the street and compare which bank will give you the better deal. Under this bill, if you have only one bank window to go to, and you are living in rural America, you will be told that your bank is exempt from having to see to it that you are going to be dealt with fairly. There is something seriously wrong here. Streamlining the process for rural small banks is something I applaud; it is something we ought to move ahead on to make it easier. I do not want people to be denied options, denied choices, and to be discriminated against when it comes to getting the credit they need. According to Christopher Williston, the president of the Independent Bankers Association of Texas: Most small banks are really very accustomed to complying with CRA. . .. Now they know exactly what the regulators are looking for, many of my members would say CRA is here and I can live with it. Mr. President, again, if there are specific problems with the implementation of CRA, if there are certain activities that should be considered that are not considered, then the appropriate way to address those specific concerns is to work with the regulators or come up with a specific legislative approach. The Senator from Texas, our distinguished chairman, should remember our conversations to address this and have some hearings to look into the issues he raised. Again, don't exaggerate and turn four-tenths of 1 percent of the applications into a common practice, and then miss the opportunity to include reasonable CRA provisions in this consolidation of financial services. I hope there will be enough votes on the other side to support the Bryan amendment. I am fearful if we do not do so, this bill is doomed. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks the other day that my colleague from Maryland and I have been at this together for the full 18 years I have served in the Senate. He has been at it longer than that, having served a bit longer than I have in the Senate. Nothing--nothing--would make me happier than to pass this bill and expand and consolidate financial services to serve consumers' needs and keep America in a leadership position on these issues. However, I cannot support a bill that turns its back on my constituents at home. I want to help my financial institutions in Connecticut. I want to help banks across the country. But I cannot, in doing so, turn the clock back on the gains, on the strengthening of America that we have made with the Community Reinvestment Act. Whatever shortcomings it has--and I am certain they are there, CRA is not perfect--let's fix the shortcomings. Let's deal with those, but do not deprive people in this country of the increased opportunities. We have a CRA bill on the books that has worked well, even by those who must bear the burden of implementing these regulations. We must no place in jeopardy an otherwise fine bill that, in my opinion, deserves broad-based support in this Chamber and the other body. I hope that we will stand at 7 p.m. tonight when the votes are cast, in what may be the only civil rights vote of this Congress, and the Bryan amendment will be adopted. Maybe other civil rights votes will come along, but as of right now, this will be the only test as to where people stand when it comes to seeing that equal opportunity in America is going to be at least preserved in this Congress and not set back. I hope at 7 o'clock, when the vote begins and as Members come to the Chamber to cast their ballots, they will keep in mind the importance of this bill. And to a far greater extent, keep in mind those who depend upon us to see to it that they are going to have equal opportunity in America, a chance to participate in the American dream in the 21st century, and will not be denied because of an action we take tonight by denying the preservation of CRA in a new financial services framework.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I enjoy the Senator's collegiality and leadership. It is nice to have the distinguished Senator from Idaho as a new Member of the Senate. Let me begin these brief remarks by commending the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Gramm, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Sarbanes, for their efforts on this legislation to date. I have been on the Banking Committee, and in fact I sat with my colleague from Maryland. I have been in the Congress 24 years, and I think for almost all 24 years he has been my seatmate--usually depending on where we were, the majority or the minority, to the left or right of me--almost all 24 years on one committee or another, including service in the House, in the Judiciary Committee, and then over these last 18 years in both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Banking Committee. I have been fortunate to have his good counsel and advice, and admired his leadership and thoughtfulness on so many issues. This is one which I constantly feel like the mythological figure of Sisyphus, rolling up this rock of financial services modernization every Congress. I do not think there is one we have missed since my arrival in this Chamber 18 years ago, not one Congress in which we have not tried to address the issue of modernization of financial services. On numerous occasions, the Senate, this body, actually completed its work but, because of bifurcated jurisdictions and other matters in the House, we were never able to attain success; that is, sending a bill, a broad bill on financial modernization, to a President, any of them that I served with-- including President Reagan, President Bush, and now President Clinton. But we are precariously close to achieving a result that has been unattainable over the last number of years. The fact that we are dealing with this legislation as early as we are in this Congress is heartening to me, because it means we have in front of us an opportunity to complete action on what I think is a worthwhile endeavor. Again, let me commend my two colleagues who are making it possible for us to arrive at the point where we are on the floor of the Senate. Over the next several days we will consider, I assume, a number of different amendments that will, I hope, allow us to bring broad-based support to this proposal and to enter a conference with the other body and send a measure to the President which he can sign. That is a lot of steps in front of us. I realize that. But if you know the past history of this legislation, they seem like minor steps indeed, when you consider we rarely reach the point we are today. Let me also, once again, in this forum here, commend my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm. This is his first major legislative effort as chairman of the Banking Committee. He has had other major legislative efforts but never as the chairman of this committee. He deserves all due credit for his contributions to this bill. Few committee chairmen have more personally invested themselves in a piece of legislation than he has. As I said a moment ago, my colleague and friend from Maryland brings a career's worth of experience in dealing with financial services issues, both domestic and international. His counsel and advice and words of wisdom ought to be heeded. The legislation before us does address some very, very important issues, outstanding issues. It provides a framework for modernization of our Nation's financial services. It allows banks and securities firms, as I know you have heard from both the chairman of the committee and the Senator from Maryland, and insurance companies, to affiliate. It provides a rational process, we think, for these affiliations to take place. Although it needs to improve, in my view this bill provides some significant benefits and protections to consumers who would not only benefit from these diversified firms but who would also benefit from having standardized and comprehensive protections for the sale of securities and insurance products. Let me add right here, these are arcane subject matters. Sometimes we are asked where the consumer protections are in this bill; where is the consumer in this legislation? The consumer is all through this bill, in a sense. First and foremost, the consumer is there because consumers are seeking to handle their financial matters in a more expeditious way, knowing they have broad, comprehensive protections. In many ways, this legislation is trying to catch up with what already is occurring in the marketplace, both at home and abroad. By regulation and court decision, much of our modernization is occurring. What we are seeking to do here is involve ourselves, as we should have been years ago, in setting out the guidelines of modernization from a public policy standpoint. So it is very important legislation because the courts, and in too many cases the regulators, do not bring to bear the kind of consumer issues that only a public policy forum like the Senate can do. When the issue is raised where is the consumer in this legislation, in fact the consumer is all through this bill. It is our goal here to see to it that they will be able to conduct their financial matters, financial business in a way that conforms to the lives and demands of consumers in this country, and that will also better equip them with protections in dealing with other matters in securities and insurance issues. This bill also protects the traditional right of States to regulate insurance, something that has been subject to longstanding debate. This will codify at the end of the 20th century how we in Congress feel about that issue, while at the same time will provide for functional regulation of all financial institutions. That has been an ongoing debate for years, and one that the adoption of this bill would establish firmly as we enter the 21st century. But I believe the outstanding issues, such as banking and commerce, the operating subsidy of affiliate structure and additional consumer protections, can and will be worked out in a reasonable fashion. However, I must share my deep frustration, frankly, and great concern over the future of financial services modernization legislation. During my tenure, as I said a moment ago, in the Senate, I, like many of my colleagues, have invested a significant amount of time and effort attempting to enact modernization legislation. I am of the belief that it is vital to the future of America's financial services industries and important to consumers as well. This process has not been an easy one. Finding the delicate balance of protecting consumers while at the same time creating a regulatory framework that fosters market efficiency and industry innovation has been a difficult and a long task. I had hoped that by today I would be speaking on behalf of the merits of a bipartisan legislative approach. I had hoped to speak on behalf of a bill that last year received the overwhelming support of the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 16 to 2. Just recently, similar legislation passed the House Banking Committee by a vote of 51 to 8. Instead, I reluctantly rise to express my deep concerns about the legislation before us that attacks what I consider to be one of the most important laws in our Federal code, the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, of which you are going to hear a great deal in the coming days. The attack on CRA contained in this legislation is clear, in my view, and unmitigated. It broadly exempts depository institutions from CRA. It attempts to address a problem that simply does not exist, and in the process, in my view, does great harm to a law that has brought billions of dollars in mortgage and small business credit to rural and urban Americans, allowing them to participate with equal opportunity to expand their financial gains and opportunities in this country. As you know, this bill as drafted will be vetoed by the President. We usually receive a statement of administration policy written by the appropriate department head. Only on rare occasions does the President of the United States write a personal letter prior to committee markup, stating his concerns and articulating his promise to veto a bill if certain provisions are not resolved. Of primary importance to the President is the preservation of the Community Reinvestment Act in the context of any financial modernization legislation. I will say very directly--I say this to my colleagues, whom I know have a different point of view. If this bill is not changed to address various CRA concerns, the President of the United States will veto this bill. And that mythological figure of Sisyphus will, once again, rear his head at the close of the 20th century and we will fail in our attempts to modernize financial services. That would be a great misfortune. But I say as well that to pass a piece of legislation as we end the 20th century, about to begin the 21st, and to disregard the principles and values incorporated in the Community Reinvestment Act, also, in my view, would be a tragedy of significant proportion. The veto of this bill as written is certain, as certain as our ability to avoid it. We should understand who supports this attack on the CRA provisions contained in this bill. The attack has not been sought by the industry, which is normally the case. There is no constituency of support for them. The support of this legislation is not contingent on the inclusion of CRA provisions. Banks are in the midst of their 7th year of record profits with CRA as the law of the land. Over the years, at the request of industry and appropriate regulators, CRA has been simplified and modified to be far less invasive to depository institutions. The fact of the matter is that banks care little about changing CRA. The attack on CRA is truly supported only by a few people. I say again with deep respect to my colleague and friend from Texas, who cares deeply about this issue, as does the senior Senator from Alabama: I respect their points of view. I disagree with them fundamentally. I respect their points of view. But there are really no other constituencies that I can find who share their point of view on this issue. There are many people who have a different point of view, including financial institutions, consumer groups, and others about the importance of extending the CRA provisions. Let me reiterate, if I can. The President of the United States, all Federal regulators, industry, 51 of the 60 Democrats and Republicans in the House Banking Committee, 16 of the 18 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Banking Committee, all support the preservation of CRA. While not perfect--and no one is arguing that it is--CRA, in my view, and in the view of many others, has been truly a success story. Between 1993 and 1997, the number of conventional home mortgage loans extended to African Americans increased by over 70 percent. Let me repeat that. Between 1993 and 1997, the number of conventional home mortgages extended to African Americans increased by over 70 percent. Over the same period, the number of home mortgage loans increased 45 percent for Hispanics, and 30 percent for Native Americans. According to the Small Business Administration, loans to African- American-owned businesses doubled between the years of 1993 and 1997. More than $1 trillion has been leveraged under CRA--credit for home mortgages, small businesses, and other purposes--that has enabled creditworthy citizens, minority creditworthy citizens to improve their economic status and that of their families in both rural areas and inner cities. We should not retreat from these laudable goals if we are going to make the modernization of financial services conform with the modernization of a society that reaches out to each and every sector of that society to see to it that they have the equal opportunity to invest and to grow and to enjoy the full benefits of being Americans. Despite these strides, CRA has not erased all lending discrimination in this country. In 1997, mortgage loans for African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics were denied at a rate of more than twice those of white mortgage applicants of similar incomes. For both urban and rural areas, CRA has played an invaluable role in economic development. I recently received a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, signed by the mayors of nearly 200 towns and cities of all sizes, from New Haven, CT, to Houston, TX. Let me quote them. It states: The Community Reinvestment Act has played a critical role in encouraging federally insured financial institutions to invest in the cities of our nation. The letter goes on further and says: Unless the onerous CRA provisions are addressed and the CRA is preserved, we would urge strong opposition to the Senate bill as presently drafted. Urban areas are not the only beneficiaries of CRA. CRA loans assist small farmers in obtaining credit for operating expenses, livestock, and real estate. Less than a month ago, we voted unanimously to award a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks. As we all know, Ms. Parks led the fight in this country for racial equality. The CRA provisions in this bill we have before us today would send, in my view, Rosa Parks and many others to the back of that bus economically. They would directly hurt minorities and rural citizens by restricting their right to pursue the American dream to own a home, start a small business, to receive fair access to credit. Despite my strong support for financial services modernization--and, Mr. President, it is very strong, indeed--if the price of modernization is the denial of financial services in the 21st century to rural Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans in the country, then I am unwilling to pay it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Sarbanes' substitute amendment and Senator Bryan's CRA amendment. In my view, if these measures are improved, as I believe they should be, then I think we would have a strong bill. There are a lot of other amendments that may be offered. There is a debate over the op-sub and the affiliate issue. I think that is an important issue. I think the issue of privacy in financial dealings is an important issue. And there are many other matters that may be raised. But, in my view, nothing--nothing--is as important as whether or not we are going to provide equal access to our financial institutions to all Americans. The Community Reinvestment Act has made a significant contribution to tearing down the barriers that have existed far too long and has provided the access to credit, home mortgages, and improving the financial future of too many of our citizens to retreat now. To back up on a major, major bill such as this, I think, would be a great retreat, indeed. So as strongly as I support the concepts included in the fundamental financial modernization bill, Mr. President, I could not support a bill that treats too many of our Americans unfairly as they presently are by retreating on Community Reinvestment Act provisions. So I urge my colleagues, those who care about financial modernization, those who care about civil rights and care about access to financial institutions, to support the substitute, support the CRA amendments. I think then we would have a strong bill, and remaining issues could be resolved without too much difficulty. But a bill that fails to address this issue is a bill that, in my view, will not pass and will not be signed into law, and it would be an unfortunate, unfortunate day, indeed. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have noticed over the last week every time I get up to give a talk, the Senator from Idaho is in the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to begin by commending our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and others who are responsible for drafting this resolution of which I am a cosponsor. As the Senator from Utah has indicated, this resolution gives our President the means to respond to this crisis, utilizing whatever force may be necessary in concert with our allies. Obviously the best resolution to the crisis in Kosovo would be a political and diplomatic agreement which does not put any more lives in harm's way. Unfortunately, such a resolution depends on Slobodan Milosevic halting his campaign of genocide and agreeing to the reasonable conditions set forth by the United States and our allies. So far, however, he has indicated that force is the only language he understands. Clearly, this is not a unilateral effort on behalf of the United States. There are 18 other nations that make up the NATO strategic alliance. As a result, it is essential that we act in concert with them. The resolution before us is fair, balanced, and deserves the support of our colleagues. As my colleague from Arizona said earlier, it is unfortunate that we are placed under the pressure of casting a yea or nay vote or a tabling motion, if one is made, after such a short period of debate. Ideally, we might have waited a few more days for consideration of this resolution. It was not the desire of the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor the distinguished Senator from Delaware to force this vote. It is one that is being forced upon us by a procedural requirement under the law. Never the less, the resolution before us is both sound and important. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Before I proceed to the matter before us today, let me just take a moment to join my colleagues in expressing how pleased I am that Servicemen Ramirez, Gonzales and Stone have finally been freed from their prison cells and have now been reunited with their families. Reverend Jackson, who led the delegation and secured their release, certainly deserves our commendation. While we rejoice at the freedom of three brave Americans, however, we must also keep in mind that on the very same day they were released, some 7,000 Kosovars were forced to flee for their lives and seek refuge in neighboring countries. Today, they have joined the ranks of more than one million Kosovar Albanians who have watched their homes disappear behind clouds of acrid smoke, who now know the pain of missing or murdered family members, or who know the personal pain of torture or rape. These atrocities are not isolated incidents. Rather, they represent a calculated and methodical effort to commit genocide, designed and executed by Slobodan Milosevic and his soldiers and policemen. Mr. Milosevic has left his bloody hand print on more than just Kosovo. Several years ago, we saw his willingness to use murder, torture and rape as tools of a ethnic-cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Months before NATO dropped the first bomb on Yugoslavia he had already forced 400,000 Kosovars from their homes in spite of the Herculean efforts by the United States and our allies to find a diplomatic or political resolution. Thus, the notion that NATO forces have contributed or caused the Kosovars to be displaced or put in harm's way is entirely without merit. This tragedy has resulted from the actions of one individual and those of his supporters who have allowed this policy to go forward. The messages we send, both by the words we utter and by the votes we cast, often travel far beyond the walls of this chamber. Rarely, however, do they travel as far or as widely as will the messages we send during this debate. Firstly, our service men and women are listening at their posts around the world. They want to know where they stand when it comes to the Senate. They ought to know, in performance of their duties, they have the backing and the support of their elected representatives. It ought to be abundantly clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they fight under the American flag. It was not their decision to be engaged in combat. Yet, the jobs they do are monumentally important. We must not take any action here in the Senate which will send the signal that they have anything but the highest level of support we can muster. The innocent men, women and children of Kosovo are also listening tonight. More than 665,000 are in refugee camps in Macedonia or Albania living under tremendously difficult conditions. While they are safe, they desperately want to be able to return to what is left of their homes and villages and begin the difficult process of rebuilding. Hundreds of thousands of others are hiding in the hills of Kosovo without adequate food or shelter, praying that Serb forces will not find them. They too are listening to the message we send here today, wondering when they will be able to come out of the hills without a fear of death or torture. They are also listening in Belgrade tonight. President Milosevic is listening for a crack in the United States' resolve to oppose his reign of terror in Kosovo. I hope there is no debate in this Chamber that his actions should be ignored. Similarly, I hope that the Senate will not stand silent instead of expressing our sense of outrage over what this man has done to so many innocent people simply because of their ethnicity. We must never stand silent in the face of Mr. Milosevic's genocide. All across Europe, our NATO allies are listening. It has not been easy for the 19 member nations to come together in a common purpose. I hope that, as our allies watch these proceedings tonight and tomorrow, they understand how highly we regard this alliance. I have heard some of our colleagues say it does not make any difference to them whether or not NATO is damaged as a result of our votes or action. I cannot disagree more vigorously. It would be a grave mistake to damage this important alliance. Yet, we could do just damage by the votes we cast and statements we make over the next several hours. Finally, the governments and citizens of the front-line states are listening. It is critically important that we demonstrate our support to Albania, which has borne the greatest burden, and Macedonia, which despite its complicated political situation, has taken in large numbers of refugees. The province of Montenegro also deserves commendation for, despite is status as a province of Yugoslavia, it has refused to subjugate its police forces to Yugoslav control and has taken in tens of thousands of Kosovar refugees. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia also deserve international commendation. With the exception of Hungary, none of those is a NATO ally, yet they are standing with us. Yet, in contrast to their steadfast support, in a little more than 12 hours, the United States Senate may decide that this crisis is not worthy of our vote to give the President and NATO the backing they need to deal with this issue. I want to point out to my colleagues, that the world--from a newly orphaned child in a Macedonian refugee camp to our allies to Slobodan Milosevic--does listen to the messages we send. Mr. President, 60 years ago next week a ship called the ``St. Louis'' sailed from Hamburg, Germany. Aboard were 937 passengers with one-way tickets. Nine-hundred six of the passengers were Jewish refugees who, having lived through Kristallnacht six months earlier, already feared for their lives. Holding what they believed to be valid entry permits for Cuba, they left their homes and lives behind, hoping to find safety on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean. When they arrived in Havana two weeks later, however, only 28 were permitted, to go ashore. After lying at anchor for a full week under the oppressive sun, the St. Louis left Havanna and tried to enter American waters, but they were told that they were not welcome in this country, that we could not take 900 more people into the United States. That ship and its passengers returned to Europe more than a month after it left. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum just a few blocks from here has traced the lives of the St. Louis' passengers. The fates of the more than one third of the St. Louis' passengers who later perished in the Holocaust should stand as a stark warning to us here today. There are no ships at sea tonight, but I make the case that there is indeed a ``St. Louis.'' It is called Albania; it is called Montenegro; it is called Macedonia. And there are many more thousands inside Kosovo who are now watching and listening to what we, the leader of the free world, the leader of the effort to try to bring some order to the chaos which has been visited in the Balkans, are saying. To all of the different parties listening to our debate tonight and to our votes tomorrow, we must send the same message and we must send that message with a clear and convincing voice. We should support the McCain resolution in order to demonstrate that we will give NATO the backing and support it needs politically, diplomatically, and, yes, if need be, militarily, to respond to this situation. If we fail to respond, we may well place not only Kosovo but the rest of Europe in harm's way The lessons of history are before us. We have been told by George Santayana that ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' I hope that in the next 12 hours or so, before we vote on this matter, our colleagues think long and hard about this resolution. I hope we will find the strength to overlook the personalities. Whether or not we like this President or voted for him or agree with him on every issue, there is an organization called NATO which we will place in jeopardy if we fail to act properly and prudently. There are people's lives who are in jeopardy at this very hour as we debate this issue on the floor of the Senate. And there is the future precedent being set by how we act here. If we do not approve this resolution, history will judge us. Let the words of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel be a warning to us here tonight: ``Rejected by mankind, the condemned to not go so far as to reject it in turn. Their faith remains unshaken, and one may well wonder why. They do not despair. The proof: they persist in surviving not only to survive, but to testify. The victims elect to become witnesses.'' So, Mr. President, I urge the support and adoption of the McCain- Biden resolution. I believe it is the right thing to do. History will judge us properly and well if we support this important resolution. Our future, our children and generations to come, both here in America and around the world, will applaud the action of a Congress that has not lost sight of the lessons of history. Mr. President, I see the arrival of the majority leader and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. To my colleague from Utah, Mr. Hatch, I yield 1 or 2 minutes for some observations.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator John Warner and twelve of our colleagues in the Senate are introducing a bill to end restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba--the so-called Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. Our House colleagues Jose Serrano and Jim Leach are introducing the House companion bill today as well. Yesterday the Clinton Administration took some long overdue steps to end the practice of using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons. President Clinton has decided to reverse existing U.S. policy of prohibiting sales of such items to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. We applaud that decision. Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman said President Clinton had decided that, ``food should not be used as a tool of foreign policy, except under the most compelling circumstances.'' In announcing the change in policy yesterday, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the policy after a two-year review concluded that the sale of food and medicine ``doesn't encourage a nation's military capability or its ability to support terrorism.'' I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less desirable uses. Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children, living ninety miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be changed through legislative action. I disagree with that judgment. However, in order to facilitate the lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, Senator Warner, myself, and twelve of our Senate colleagues have decided to move forward with this legislation today. It is our assumption that the Clinton Administration will support this legislation, since it does legislatively for Cuba what it has just instituted by Executive order for Sudan, Libya and Iran. What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``If that is what you think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.'' However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries. Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible. The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point: Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28 licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire period. To give you some perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act which shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba was importing roughly $700 million of such products on an annual basis from U.S. subsidiaries. Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do no follow up on whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half year period doesn't even represent roughly 0.1% of the exports of U.S. food and medicines that took place prior to 1992. For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S. licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements, serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing business with Cuba. Food sales are virtually impossible to undertake as well. Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its human rights practices or some of its other policy decisions. I believe that we should speak out strongly on such matters as respect for human rights and the treatment of political dissidents. But U.S. policy with respect to Cuba goes far beyond that-- it denies eleven million innocent Cuban men, women and children access to U.S. food and medicine. The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices-- recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually ``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal. America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan, in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this legislation when it comes to a vote later this year.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. In response to my colleague--and I thank him for raising the issue--I do not claim great expertise in the product liability area. We have done some work, and I appreciate his comments, on the securities bill, the standards reform bill, and here on the Y2K area. So going back and revisiting this, while I do not recall the point the Senator raises, I do not question what he has said. I presume, in fact, that he is correct. I simply do not bring any personal recollection of how we crafted that. I know the administration cares about the Y2K issue. I negotiated with the White House on securities litigation, and there were some difficult issues to resolve. The Senator may recall that in that case the President vetoed the bill and the Congress overrode the veto. That is how that piece of legislation became law. On uniform standards, President Clinton and Vice President Gore were tremendously helpful and supportive, and I suspect they will be here as well. I want to be careful. I think it is fine to go back and use previous examples on punitive damages and on director and officer liability and on state of mind issues. However, there are differences in the application of law when you are dealing with bodily injury and other questions where product liability issues can come in, and even more differences when contract law comes into play. Contract law is basically what we are talking about here. Let me just say this, because the Senator has raised a very important point. I know there are going to be Members--there always are--who think that we are going too far in the punitive damage area and with director and officer liability, and who think we are giving away too much. I think there are people who care about the trial bar and think we have not done enough in this area and that there is too much here against the trial bar. This bill really does provide a balance at this point. We have not adopted this amendment, but on the assumption it is adopted, we have removed the caps on punitive damages in most instances, removed the caps on director and officer liability, and kept the status quo on state of mind issues. Those are issues the trial bar said were very important to them. Is it everything they want? No. Does it give away more than some who care about these issues want? It does. But traditionally, when you are trying to craft a piece of legislation with as many different points of view as 100 Senators can bring to the debate, clearly no side is going to prevail with everything it would like. What we have done here, I think, is struck a sound, good balance that is a good bill and one I hope will attract the broad support of Republicans and Democrats, and to move on. I see the chairman of the committee has arrived on the floor here. In his absence I was praising him. I would do so in his presence as well, but I realize he may want to go on to other matters here. I have already been taking advantage of the Presiding Officer's presence here by extending the time by unanimous consent, and I do not want to abuse the graciousness he has already demonstrated to me any more than that, so I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I think I ought to ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me begin by thanking our colleague from Oregon. He is very effusive and gracious in his compliments. He describes himself as a rookie. But he is anything than a rookie when it comes to the legislative process. He served with great distinction in the other body, and has been here now several years proving the value of his experience as a seasoned legislator in the Senate. Let me just say I am very hopeful. I was very pleased yesterday that we were able to reach an agreement on three proposals that I felt, and many others felt, were essential if this Y2K litigation legislation was going to succeed. One of these proposals was to deal with the punitive damages cap issue with the exception of municipalities, government entities, and smaller businesses, which are described as businesses that employ 50 people or less. This number is more than the 25 employees which usually defines a small business. I realize that one might make a very strong case that even more than 50 employees would still constitute a small business. But with a country that is growing all the time, I think most of us would agree that a small business today would still be one that employed 50 people or less. We also eliminated the caps on the director and officer liability because under the disclosure bill passed last year we crafted a safe harbor for forward-looking statements by directors and officers and managers. We felt that this safe harbor would suffice, along with the normal business judgment rule which protects managers to some degree. As a result, we didn't think a cap on director and officer liability was necessary. I am pleased that Senator McCain and Senator Hatch, as well as my good colleague and friend, Senator Bennett--who really has been the leader on the Y2K issue for so many years--agreed with both of those provisions, as well as with the state of mind provisions. It gets rather arcane when you start talking about some of these legal terms, but they are important matters. What we are doing with the claims involving state of mind is leaving the status quo with respect to the evidentiary standard. That is, each State determines what that standard is, instead of having a national standard. There was some effort to have clear and convincing evidence be used as the evidentiary standard you would have to reach, but 34 States already have that standard. Many other States do not have that standard, so we thought the best result on a compromise was to leave it to the States to decide what that standard ought to be, rather than incorporating it in this bill. Again, I thank Senator McCain, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, and others who have agreed to and supported these changes. As I understand it, there are other outstanding issues. The Senator from Oregon is absolutely correct. There are colleagues who have other amendments. They would not support this bill even with these additions. I know Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has a strong interest in proportional liability issues. I am confident that Senator Hollings and Senator Edwards have some suggestions they might want to make to this bill. My hope is that our leaders can work this out. I know Senator Daschle is more than prepared to sit down and work with our distinguished majority leader to allow for a series of amendments to be considered, as we normally do here, on this bill and to allow them to come up, to debate them, to vote on them, and to try and get this bill completed. I think we could complete it by this weekend, by tomorrow, if we began to work. I do not know what the schedule is. There may be other matters that are more pressing in the minds of the leadership. But it seems to me now that agreeing on a package of amendments that can be offered is the way to go. We are going to have a cloture vote here shortly. I am going to oppose invoking cloture because we have not yet agreed on a process and I do not want to deny an opportunity to any of my colleagues. I know there may be some on the majority side who do not yet agree with this bill. There are several who have strong reservations about this bill even with the additions we have made to it by this agreement, and they may have some amendments they may want to offer. That is how we do business in the Senate. The Presiding Officer knows of what I speak. We both served in the other body, the House of Representatives, where you have strict rules and whoever is in the majority controls this exactly, determining if any amendments are to be considered. In the Senate we are a different institution. Here we allow the free flow of debate and we do not deny Members the opportunity to bring up issues that they believe are critically important, even issues that are not germane to the matter before us. Although we do not encourage that in every instance, that can be done here. That is what makes the Senate of the United States different from the Chamber down the hall. We are, in a sense, counterweights to each other. In the House of Representatives the rule of the majority prevails, as it should. In a sense, in the Senate we protect the rights of a minority to be heard. That is what we are hoping the leaders will allow to happen today. We hope an agreement is reached on a series of amendments that will allow them to be debated and discussed and voted on. If that is the case, I am very confident that we will be able to pass this important piece of legislation and send it to the House, where they are considering similar legislation. I am also very confident that we can secure a signature from the President, who I know cares very much about this issue, as does the Vice President, and we can accomplish what many have sought here--to protect against the dangers of massive litigation over this year 2000 computer bug which is looming on the horizon. Two hundred and forty days from now, when the millenium clock turns, I do not think that any of us here wants to be looking back and saying we lost an opportunity here in April to try to at least limit the kind of financial hardship and economic disruption that could occur if we do not address the threat of a Y2K litigation explosion. So I am very hopeful that we can come together, as we have already come so far. Again, I express my thanks to the chairman of the committee who has the thankless job of trying to move a complicated bill along. Senator Hatch has also been tremendously helpful and supportive on this. Again, Senator Bennett of Utah, with whom I work on the Y2K committee, has done just an astounding job, I think, of bringing to the attention of all of us here, as well as to the people across this country, the importance of this issue. And, of course, the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Oregon and Senator Feinstein of California. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who cares very much about litigation reform issues generally, has also been very helpful on this. I fear I am leaving some people out here. I hope I am not. But at this juncture I know these are people who have been involved in this issue and care about it. Again, my plea to the majority leader, and I know Senator Daschle cares about this, too, is to see if we can now come to some agreement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Hagel, which we hope will bring desperately needed reform to the process by which the United States imposes sanctions on other nations. Eighty years ago, President Wilson formally added economic sanctions to America's foreign policy arsenal for the first time, saying that with sanctions as a weapon, ``there will be no need for force.'' In the intervening decades, we have taken a greater liking to sanctions than President Wilson ever could have imagined. I doubt very much, however, that he would approve of the way in which we employ that tool today nor of the results accomplished by sanctions. When President Wilson described his idea of sanctions as a diplomatic tool, he was trying to convince the Senate to ratify American membership in the League of Nations. The sanctions he envisioned were broad, multi-national efforts designed to affect specific results under limited circumstances. He also intended sanctions to serve as one component of multi-stage escalation of diplomatic pressure, rather than a complete response. Our method for imposing sanctions today bears almost no resemblance to President Wilson's original concept. Sanctions have become the first response to actions which are objectionable to the United States. Very often, they are also a response in and of themselves, rather than part of a coherent escalation of pressure. In addition, the vast majority of American sanctions are not the multilateral efforts President Wilson envisioned. Rather, Mr. President, they are unilateral efforts which anger our allies, damage our global standing, and hurt our own businesses and people. And lest we excuse the drawbacks of unilateral sanctions with the argument that the benefits for American foreign policy outweigh the harm, let me be very clear: there are very rarely such benefits. For far too long we have subscribed to the mistaken view that sanctions represent concrete steps more powerful than mere condemnation and more speedy than diplomacy. Unilateral sanctions, Mr. President may make us feel good by severing access to American know-how, markets, ideas, and products. They may help us demonstrate that we are willing to be tough on governments with unacceptable policies or even allow us to appease a particular constituency that has clamored for action against a particular rogue nation. What unilateral sanctions do not do, however, is work. We are blindfolded by our own rhetoric, Mr. President, if we think that sanctions are the key to correcting the behavior of targeted nations. A recent study found that perhaps one out of every five unilateral sanctions has any desired effect at all. And in those few cases where our goal was met, such as a change in the President of Colombia, sanctions were only one of many factors. When we mention successes, we all too often ignore the much longer list of countries--including Haiti, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Panama, and North Korea--where sanctions have failed. In fact, sanctions may even allow some authoritarian regimes to consolidate their control by providing them with a convenient scapegoat to blame for their domestic failures. In addition, we must not lose sight of the unintended consequences of sanctions. They hurt our economy. They hurt our allies. They hurt our ability to achieve our foreign policy goals. Perhaps most of all, they hurt our own citizens. Mr. President, it is imperative that we move expeditiously to correct the deep flaws in our system for imposing sanctions. In recent years, Congress has imposed sanctions intended to discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to deliver them, advance human rights and end genocide, end state-supported terrorism, discourage armed aggression, thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment and even, in a few cases, oust governments that are anathema to the United States. Since President Wilson proposed the use of sanctions to realize American foreign policy goals, we have imposed them more than 110 times. Today, however, the situation is growing more acute. In just the past six years, Congress passed more than 70 sanctions. That is more than 11 per year. Last year, we had sanctions in place against 26 different countries which included more than half of the world's population. When Congress passes these sanctions, however, it often takes a second congressional action to repeal them. This onerous process robs our nation of the ability to react to changing circumstances, interferes with the President and Secretary of State's mandate to negotiate with foreign governments and leaders and prevents the lifting of sanctions which have little chance of success while bringing harm on the United States' national interests. The bill that I am proposing today will correct these deficiencies by giving the President the authority to delay, suspend or terminate any sanction that he determines is not in the United States' national interest. We often think of sanctions as cost-less actions since they require no governmental appropriation. As business leaders and workers across the country will tell you, however, that perception is simply erroneous. In 1998, the United States had sanctions, of some sort, in place against 26 different nations including China and India, the two most populous nations in the world. Those sanctions covered well over half of the world's population, cutting American firms off from billions of potential customers. According to the Institute for International Economics here in Washington, the economic sanctions currently in effect cost American businesses $20 billion annually in lost export sales and cost America's workers 200,000 high-wage jobs. Those figures, however, tell only part of the story. The cost to businesses does not end when the sanctions are repealed. Rather, the absence of American companies allows foreign competitors to make inroads leaving the American businesses to try battle the entrenched competition, along with any lingering popular resentment toward the United States, when the barriers fall. Needless to say, our allies think that American unilateral sanctions, while affording them a rather pleasant competitive advantage, lack a degree of rationality. It would be shortsighted, Mr. President, to consider the cost merely in terms of the monetary loss. Rather, our wholesale use of unilateral sanctions damages our standing in the world community. Our diplomats have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to assuage the concerns of our allies who find themselves on the receiving end of some of our secondary sanctions. Meanwhile, when dealing with target nations, they are deprived of the ability to offer a carrot in exchange for policy changes. Moreover, the fact that more than half of the world's population is now on the receiving end of American sanctions and our willingness to impose sanctions when the rest of the world finds them unnecessary degrades our ability to convince other nations to follow our leadership. Congress' current infatuation with sanctions also hampers our nation's ability to conduct diplomacy. The Constitution gives Congress a powerful role in foreign policy, from the power to declare war to the power to regulate commerce. Clearly, Congress is within its Constitutional mandate when it imposes sanctions on foreign governments. What Congress cannot do, however, is micro-manage our foreign policy on a day to day basis. The power to negotiate with foreign governments and leaders rests solely with the President. Anything which detracts from his ability to negotiate, including sanctions over which he has no control over, damages his ability to exact concessions and come to an agreement acceptable to the United States. I am not arguing, Mr. President, that sanctions are not a legitimate foreign policy tool nor that, if used appropriately, they can be efficacious. Nor am I arguing that all sanctions currently in place should be removed. To the contrary, I strongly support sanctions against countries such as Iraq and Yugoslavia. Sanctions, however, should be part of a comprehensive foreign policy with clear goals. They should be imposed for a finite period of time with an option to extend if the situation warrants continued pressure. Finally, sanctions must allow the President and Secretary of State the room they need to maneuver in order to effectively negotiate foreign governments. It is also essential that we strive for multinational support of our sanctions. Board sanctions, either global or at least in concert with the other industrialized countries, not only have a far greater chance of affecting the desired result but minimize the threat to our international leadership, and domestic economy in both the short and long term. Occasionally, other nations take actions so offensive to American policy that the United States must act regardless of foreign cooperation. In those cases, we must endeavor to minimize the negative effects our sanctions have on third countries and on our own economy. We must also carefully target our sanctions at the offending government officials rather than the general population--people who often have little or no ability to affect meaningful change. Sanctions deserve a place, even a prominent place, in our foreign policy tool kit. Working with our allies, they can have the power President Wilson described shortly after witnessing the horrors of World War I. At the same time, Mr. President, we must not be so infatuated with sanctions as to replace tools which have stood us in such good stead for more than two centuries, such as diplomacy. The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing today will make the sanctions we do impose more powerful and improve the results while simultaneously reducing the costs to Americans and our allies. In fact, Mr. President, these reforms will lead to a stronger American foreign policy capable of realizing our foreign policy goals more quickly and with less effort. This bill will allow us to finally reach the goal Congress held when it began imposing sanctions at this alarming pace. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan resolution and enacting these overdue reforms.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, sixty years ago, as Europe moved increasingly close to war, a number of philanthropic organizations came to the aid of those desperately trying to escape the Holocaust. Today, many of those same organizations have turned their attention to helping the latest victims of genocide. The American Jewish Committee, for example, has raised over $800,000 in humanitarian aide for the Kosovar refugees. As in World War II, these organizations recognize that they cannot stop the genocide without support from the world community. In the case of Kosovo, that means that NATO has had to bring its military might to bear on Slobodan Milosevic. This sentiment was poignantly expressed in a recent statement by the American Jewish Committee, one of the organizations actively worked to alleviate both the European genocide of today and that of a generation ago. Mr. President, I therefore ask that their statement in support of NATO's ongoing efforts be printed in the Record. The statement follows. Statement by the American Jewish Committee When history asks who stood up to evil in Kosovo, the answer will be: NATO. The world could see the slaughter coming. Diplomats worked furiously to prevent it--and, for a time, succeeded. But when Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic, in the name of a nationalism run amok, set his army and police at the throat of the ethnic Albanian citizens of Kosovo defying appeals to end the terror and withdraw, one international force had the resolve to stand up to Belgrade's policy of barbarism. NATO, the guarantor of European security for half a century, rose to the challenge of defending the Kosovo Albanians. Nineteen countries acted in unison to stop the violence against the Kosovars and seek their safe return under international protection. In this noble mission, NATO must prevail. What is at stake in Kosovo isn't oil or commerce or trading routes. What is at stake are basic principles: human rights, human dignity, the credibility of deterrence, collective security. With determination and courage, NATO weighed the difficult choices and chose to act--because it was right, because the alternative would give tyrants a green light to terrorize civilian populations and destroy the fabric of international order. We recognize the sacrifice made by each NATO member to arrest evil in Kosovo. In this dark century, witness to unspeakable acts of inhumanity, we applaud the alliance for taking a principled stand.